Sometimes when you substitute one word for another, it changes how you see things. I’ll admit just to you that for the longest time I’ve struggled with the word “vision”. It is a beautiful word and while its use has become commonplace, the photographic meaning remained elusive to me. That is until David duChemin substituted the word “intention” and now I am finally starting to understand how it affects what I want to say with my camera.
If the goal is to communicate through our images then we as photographers, need to know the central thesis of our own stories in those images. If we do not know then how can we expect others to find the plot and hear what we have to say. All the elements you see from the top to the bottom and from the left to the right are akin to words that we decide to include carefully and with purpose. We string them together in the equivalent of phrases and sentences to make sense, to communicate an idea, a thought that is our own. As authors of our images, whether we choose to write a poem or a novel, we must still decide what we want to say.
Take a look at this image by my friend and mentor Ray Ketcham and this photograph by another friend Monte Stevens. This week each of us posted an image with a door and at least one window. I am certain though that the stories we are sharing are all different. What do you think is the intent of each of these images? I’d love to hear your opinion.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Olwick, PTG Canada and AndreaG, Ray Ketcham. Ray Ketcham said: RT @markolwick: New post by the ever thoughtful @sabrinahenry : Mixing Intentions http://bit.ly/amOTyk -so true [...]
One is inviting, the other worn and weathered, yet still inviting in a different way.
As I progress in my photography I am learning, slowly, to have intention behind my images rather than just taking a photograph because my eye likes something. Having a good eye is important, and, without it it would be hard to be successful as a photographer, but a good eye alone won’t ensure success.
I have tried all sorts of photography books and Within the Frame was the first one that connected the dots for me. You’re right, words like vision can be so loaded and lofty that I was just confounded.
Confounded. Now that’s a great word. I’m glad I’m not the only one who is wrestling with the word “vision”. As you unravel the mystery of it, I hope you’ll share your wisdom with all of us, Jeffrey.
I agree with you Sabrina. And Jeff too. I’ve read many books over the past years as I’ve begun to photograph more seriously, but many were focused on the technical side of photography. The technical is an important base, but lately I’ve been struggling with my “vision” and my ability for my images to resonate a story or touch other’s in a some personal way. Within the Frame was a book that spoke of what I wanted. The next step in the journey.
The problem was ubiquitous term “Vision” scared and confused me. It had implications of a beautiful revelation and/or a long-term mystical certainty and connection in my images. Whoa! I don’t I have that…yet anyway. I, too, like “intentions” better. Those I have, while they may be different for various images. Those I can work at sharing. It is still a struggle for me to focus on that intention, (to what initially caught my eye and the story behind it that I want to tell) and bring it into photograph. I continue to work on it while I await my beautiful revelation!
“Within the Frame” is destined to become a classic. I’ve always believed that it is a book with the staying power of something written by Bryan Peterson or Freeman Patterson and I jealously guard my signed copy!
I agree that even though we have a new understanding of vision through the word “intention”, it is still a struggle. More often than not, I think about the intention after I have done a few frames. But I feel even that is a useful exercise because it may reveal something deeper inside of us that we may not be aware of at first. The more self-aware I become the easier it will be to photograph with intention in the moment. At least that’s my hope.
Intention is the reason for keeping ideas in the notebook, see and tell yourself why and what the story should be.
It happens when you shoot just the awareness of intention happens afterward. If the intention is known going in, it is easier to realize that ‘vision’ or message.
Yes Ray, the idea of windows was in the notebook! I can see the progression in my thinking albeit slow but it is there. Hopefully others can see it too. At some point I should do a post on the notebook
It’s amazing the power that colour holds. Though each of the three images shows closed windows and doors, Monte’s definitely feels welcoming, while Ray’s and your images have a more closed feel.
I have to say though, it’s the gesture of the chair in your photograph that does it for me. Who knew a chair could show gesture?! Turned away, a part and yet not a part. Nicely captured.
Erin, I can’t wait to meet you next month. Every comment you leave here on the blog I feel like you know me so well. For me this image is mostly about the chair and its placement in the frame. It is the central thesis. The closed door and windows and the grill behind the panes of glass are the supporting statements about why the chair is where it is. I’m so pleased you were able to pick out the intent!
Sabrina, I’m looking forward to meeting you too
And you totally nailed your intention in this photograph. Nice work!
In “On being a Photographer” by Bill Jay and David Hurn discuss the importance of selecting a subject. Near the middle of that chapter, David writes “Personal vision comes on from not aiming at it. Over a long period of time and through many, many images, the self re-emerges with even greater strength than if it were the end-product.”
The advice, I think, is to choose a subject that appeals to you enough that you are motivated to learn about more about it, then use your photography to show how you feel or why this subject appeals to you. Take care technically of course, and over time your own vision will become apparent. You describe “intention”, it’s the same thing isn’t it? Take the picture with a purpose in mind. This isn’t always easy, more often than not I’ll look at my RAW files and ask “what was I looking for with this shot”, the better shots are the ones where I had a something specific in mind.
Thanks for popping by Ken. I have to look up that book and read more about what Jay and Hurn have to say. I think that the value of the quote you shared here is that it takes time and many, many frames to understand ourselves deeply enough to make images that have meaning beyond the initial reasons why we create an image. In essence there is a conversation that takes place that starts out with the question “what was I looking for with this image”. Hopefully the answer to the question provokes further questions and in doing so our true intent is revealed.
Hey Sabrina, the book maybe out of print but here’s a link to a PDF copy
http://stephengrote.com/teaching/courses/files/storage/On%20Being%20a%20Photographer,%203rd%20Edition,%20CD%20version.pdf
While I have not read Mr. duChemin’s work, I have some hesitation about what I understand him to mean. Please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems to imply to me that you, the artist, have some sort of intention for the image, as in “I intend for this image to convey something of the beauty of the subject,” or as in “This image should convey what it was like to be in the presence of person X”. Or, instead, is it “My intention is that the audience feels sad when they look at this image.”
I ask partly to see if I understand this before I comment. There is a saying in screenwriting which goes something like this: “if you want to send a message, write a letter.” This means that while every screenplay should have a thesis (the word in your write up above that got me going) it is not necessary to communicate it to the audience; in fact, often better if it is so deeply hidden that it is almost imperceptible.
See, I *think* that David is saying “have a thought before you go snapping the shutter willy-nilly” which I agree with. But I also don’t think I can possibly (nor can any artist, if they are honest) anticipate what an image will communicate to an audience beforehand, before it is processed, etc. In that way, I agree much more with Jay and Hum for whom it seems the issue is that the intent comes when you choose what to shoot and what not to shoot. It is, essentially, inclusion by exclusion.
Oh boy Chris, this is getting muddy for me and your questions illustrate to me just how difficult it is to talk about this whole vision thing. I have to ask for your forgiveness before I start in case I don’t make sense. Please keep in mind too that these are just my thoughts on the subject and I am in no way a master of any of this. When all is said and done, I could be completely wrong but I share these struggles in the hopes of finding others who can relate and be a part of my journey.
I think that as an artist you can have any one of those three things as your intention or maybe even multiple intentions in one image. The idea that it is not necessary to communicate a message to the audience some how seems odd me because you go on to say that it is often better if it is almost imperceptible. So in the end you really are trying to communicate something? Maybe I’ve misunderstood what “they” say about screenwriting and what they mean is something Ray has been talking to me about for a while now and that is the need for audience participation.
I haven’t read Jay and Hurn’s work so I find it hard to comment on what they are saying without having the context. My understanding of what David means by intention is more the “why” rather than the “what”. For me the “inclusion by exclusion” is more the “how”. David did an excellent post just this week entitled “Nothing Left to Take Away”. I think it brings all these three ideas together very well.
Okay, what I meant about screenwriting was this: As an artist, you *always* have a point of view about your subject. You cannot possibly not, as you have created the work. Your POV will infuse every word you type or every brushstroke you make or every frame you capture. The difference my example was trying to illustrate was “I’m gonna make sure that every member of the audience understands it’s better to believe in a God than be an atheist.” So you spend every second of creating the work making sure the audience ‘gets it.’ Works created this way often come across as ham-fisted, and audience members generally don’t like being preached to, so they reject your work because of how heavy-handed it might be. However, if you just tell a story in which the spirituality is under the surface or told through metaphor (think the original Star Wars), audiences may get the message or they may not, but they don’t think they ‘have’ to. The message is incidental to the good story, as opposed to being the thing the story is about. Star Wars is a great example, because anyone can enjoy the film as pulp fiction and ignore the spiritual message. So, don’t write to send a message, but if you have a point of view, don’t be afraid to work it in. I’m not sure that is clear, but it is clear in my mind.
Another example: Macbeth is a story about how an obsessive desire for power can lead to ruin, but Shakespeare never SAYS that.
Winogrand’s images from the Zoo say, in essence, ‘see how much like animals we are, even though we think we’re so different.’ But, again, he never says that, he implies that. He makes the viewer meet him halfway, which I’m sure is what Ray is talking about. When you do that, it makes the viewer seem ‘smart’ when they figure it out.
I think I see what you’re saying Chris and it does feel like we are on different pages.
When I wrote the post, it was never about having a message in the sense that I was trying to convince the viewer of my point of view. Whether or not I consciously meant to, I did not use the word “message”. To me, having something to say in my images doesn’t necessarily require a message as those delivered through Shakespeare or Star Wars. It could be as simple as “this is how I feel and why”. Audience participation in this context would be whether or not one felt any emotions or empathy or compassion when they see my image (and here I am borrowing words from Ray).
Okay, then, in David’s view of Vision, is it necessary that the vision be communicable to the audience (whether it succeeds or not) or simply that you (the photographer) HAVE a Vision which guides the capture/processing of the image? I look at your image at the top of the post, and I can see clearly the choices you made in the processing (I could be wrong, but it feels very influenced by David’s strong sense of color; in fact, the image would read very differently without the color choice; it’s kind of ‘about’ the color). Strong choice in art creation is very important. If ‘choice’ = ‘vision’ = ‘intent,’ then we’re on the same page.
The best understanding you can get of David’s view of Vision is to read his books. If I tell you what his view is, it will be filtered through my reading of them and you’d be poorer because of it.
I would like to think that David’s influence in this image is not about the technical choices I’ve made. Like you, I do see a strong sense of colour in his images but I believe the choice is in service to the vision, not that it equals the intent.
I believe that most important message of his work (and here I do mean “message”) is that your vision should be your own and not an imitation of someone else’s work. I could be wrong but I see people who are looking for a short cut to finding their vision and it bends towards the technical. For me the most fulfilling part of the journey so far has been the non-technical piece. That does not mean I don’t enjoy the technical parts (as you well know from my visits to your blog) but they are always a part of the journey and not the focus of it.
I continue to read your writings with great interest . .. not only are you a gifted photographer but a gifted writer as well. When you are looking for someone to mentor, I would like to be first in line!!!
Oh boy now you’ve made me blush, Carolyn.
You are very generous with your words and to tell you the truth, I am struggling with this as much as the next person. Writing about intent is not easy and sometimes even thorny. I’ve considered not even talking about it but to leave it out of the Chronicles, I feel, wouldn’t be honest. I’m not one of those people to whom these things come easy and often it feels like I am groping in the dark but when I rely on my what is in my heart, I feel more at ease. All this to say I am very happy to have you along on the journey but if you need a great mentor, I know one that I can highly recommend.
I think I might know who you mean . .. the great BP . . . at any rate weighing in on the topic of the moment, that I think a great photograph is not only for you, but does require audience participation and as Bryan would say evokes some kind of emotion from the viewer. That is what I am aiming for . . .had a note from Carolyn D yesterday and when she opened up the newest photos of Desiree they made her cry . . .. that was unbelievably profound for me . . . and caused me to ponder all day on what direction I should go
No I don’t mean Bryan. He has far too much on his plate. In my view a mentor has to be someone who can be around for the highs and the lows and is committed to being with you on the journey or at least through important parts of the journey. I have in the pipeline a post on mentoring but it requires some work on my part in terms of needing to be further along on my journey.
Did Carolyn D. share those images on FB? Pondering a direction is good just don’t close yourself off to anything yet. Think of it as exploring all avenues and you might be surprised where they lead.
Wow, some heady stuff here. First, let me say – since Sabrina invited me to chime in – that I think we need to be very careful not to be prescriptive here. This is a conversation about issues that have been hammered on many an anvil and won’t get “solved” anytime soon. Second, it’s important to understand that I have always written on a very basic/pragmatic level (not an academic level) about the need for photographers to be intentional – ie, to know what they want to say, and how they want to say it given their intended audience and limited tools. I think that a mindful approach to photography will put photographers in a place where meaningful photography, as opposed to accidental one-offs, happens more frequently.
The rest gets more complicated. Intent is a slippy thing to grasp, particularily when the question is raised about the interpretation of the audience – intended or otherwise. Once your work is out there it can be interpreted in a million ways and still bring meaning to those who interpret it in a way we as authors never intended. It still falls to us to create intentionally, even if there is a chance of diverging interpretations. That’s where art differs from propaganda (among other things)
As Chris pointed out there is a risk of making your art so free of ambiguity in service of your vision that it becomes more like propaganda; I’m not advocating that. In fact I think the best work allows for some ambiguity – but that ambiguity isn’t there because the artist is a hack and creating without awareness of her intent, it’s there because the subject itself is presented in layers, with some mystery.
We could go very far down this path and I don’t have the big words to address something I don’t think even needs such fine-bladed dissection. It’s art, not biology, and the answers will prove to be ellusive – they always have. But to go back to a metaphor and talk about the camera as a tool in the same way as spoken language is a tool – I think knowing what you want to say and to whom you want to say it gives the best shot at expression, regardless of how those words are later interpreted by an audience removed from us by distances of culture, or time, etc. Anything less and we may as well espouse the idea that every random frame taken by a monkey on Automatic qualifies as expression or art. Some photographs – if expression or communication is the point – are stronger than others and it’s often the awareness of intent and choosing the best visual language tools for the job that makes it so. Among other things.
Hope this clarifies. Apologies if I repeated things others mentioned, I really didn’t read the entire thread as much as I’d have liked to. Photography is an aesthetic pursuit, the technology is only the means. As such we need to know what we want the image to look like before we choose the tools to make it so.
Thanks David; better said than in any way that I could have. And now I need a coffee!
[...] this has become more relevant, primarily because of posts by David duChemin and, especially, Sabrina Henry (and the conversation on her latest post) have focused me on it [...]
It was a great idea to post three images by different photographers, which basically show same thing, a wall, a window and the door. But they all are different. I find Josh Bradley image the most depressing. The broken window and overall look of the house reminds me of death and decay. On the other side of the spectrum, Monte Stevens image is so cheerful with the bright colors, fresh look and the reflection of the street in the wall. It is just so optimistic. I am still trying to decipher the story behind your image. It seems to be in between those two. This is an old house, but taken care of. Somebody leaves there, and enjoys sitting on the porch. It makes me think of my grandparents.
[...] this has become more relevant, primarily because of posts by David duChemin and, especially, Sabrina Henry (and the conversation on her latest post) have focused me on it [...]